Yeah, funny how it colors your opinion of a guy's reliability when he wants you and your friends thrown in prison as a warning to others. Crazy, I know!
It's understandable, but doesn't make it right. I personally dislike his opinions enough not to pay a dollar to watch his movies or read his books. I might even be loathe to give him enough respect to read this article, but that's a prejudice and it's not right.
This presumes that every belief and idea occupies an equal plane of legitimacy, and that everything is basically a matter of opinion. It's not.
His views are not acceptable. He's free to voice them all he likes, of course, but choosing to ignore him completely on the basis of some of his unacceptable views is not, in any way, "prejudice." Do keep in mind, please, that on the basis of just one thing - someone's sexual orientation - this guy is willing to give them legal status as second class citizens and incite armed rebellion against any government that would recognize their rights as people. If he's willing to do something that bad to someone solely on the basis of their sexual preferences, why on earth should anyone feel the least bit bad about choosing to simply ignore him on the basis of one of his beliefs?
I believe what you want to say is that you want to declare war on him for his beliefs. Go after his writing works, even decades in the past, go after him for his current works, and seek to destroy him because he has a difference of opinion with him.
No, I really don't. Like I said, he can have whatever opinion he likes, but once he starts advocating that laws should reflect his opinion, it's stepped over a line. The relevant logical fallacy that you and others using this argument, by the way, is the tu quoque fallacy:
Avoiding harsh words could look like a logical fallacy but it is just being polite. Essentially, attacking an article he wrote about software development years ago is a lot like my attacking an article on software development written by a lgbt person because of their sexual orientation. People have avoided saying that to be polite. That is why I likened it to declaring war on the individual for their thoughts for one thing, expanding it to all things.
A simple statement on distaste for the individual is perfectly appropriate, and personal, and many people would agree with you on that one.
I am pretty sure if I remember right his words against gay people was at a small conference and then was blown up by the lgbt community. No one would have otherwise known... If I were on LGBT mailing lists I would probably get emails helping to fight "orson scott card" and asking me to donate.
I see it how it is, Orson Scott Card holds no influence to change laws, the gay movement has won on marriage. It is just a matter of time until it is upon us all. Far right Republicans use it as a wedge issue but it is becoming a weak issue. Even surveys of church going people show that the idea has a majority of popularity in the positive. The Pope doesn't even want to focus on it. No one wants to touch the issue with a 10 foot pole, it's a loser, the issue is lost. The last few holdouts will get ran over.
"Avoiding harsh words could look like a logical fallacy but it is just being polite."
The logical fallacy is accusing people who consider intolerance unacceptable of themselves being intolerant. That is an example of tu quoque.
"A simple statement on distaste for the individual is perfectly appropriate, and personal, and many people would agree with you on that one."
You seem to be repeatedly missing the point that many people - including Card - are going far beyond a "simple statement on distaste."
"I am pretty sure if I remember right his words against gay people was at a small conference and then was blown up by the lgbt community."
In fact you do not remember right. He has written numerous articles advocating for the treatment of homosexuals as second class citizens and even armed insurrection against the government should they treat homosexuals as equal under the law. You could easily find these articles if you spent two minutes on Google. They make a lovely companion to his article about how Obama is going to recruit an army of "urban thugs" to do is his bidding.
"I see it how it is, Orson Scott Card holds no influence to change laws, the gay movement has won on marriage."
Given the widespread hatred directed at them - which goes beyond mere personal distaste - and the numerous discriminatory laws that still remain on the books around the country, and the fact that there are still 33 states that specifically outlaw gay marriage, I wouldn't say that the issue is "won" by a long shot. Don't confuse some high profile victories with total victory.
